What's wrong with freeways?

[livincinco]

You pointed out congestion only in relation to automobiles. Perhaps you've been in Houston too long but other cities have alternative ways to get to city centers besides automobiles.

 

From the National Post in Canada

 

"data indicates that the average car user spends 41 minutes less travelling to and from work daily than the average transit user. This means a transit commuter spends about 150 hours more annually travelling to and from work than an automobile commuter."

 

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=0f49732a-b9d9-477d-828b-01a727147219

 

[IronTiger]

 

Where's the connection between climate control and suburbanization? It's not as if it was restricted to new houses far from city centers.

 

You blamed Houston's sprawl on freeways, I said it was because Houston was a popular place to live. Houston's population didn't implode after the war, it exploded...even within the urban portions too. Freeways made the grand city Houston is today. For other less-desirable cities, it enabled them to remain viable and keep jobs within the city.

 

 

I gave other examples of successful freeway removal internationally as well, such as Paris and Seoul. You debunked this idea only in your own mind because there are many more projects on the table domestically that should move forward soon or already in the process.

 

Again, fringe cases and extremely rare. You've validated your view in your mind because of these unique cases (and I've told you why in the U.S. they are removed). 

 

 

How was the heart of the city spared when there is a giant freeway splitting areas east and west of downtown? These are gargantuan physical and mental barriers. If there was no pierce elevated midtown would push into downtown and it would do wonders for the city. Same for 59, with eado popping up the way it is.

 

We both have no idea what Houston would like look if there wasn't a freeway, or if we removed it. After all, in cities that don't have freeways running through the urban core (SF, NYC), a difference of a few blocks can make a huge difference between a tourist-friendly, walkable area to a scary area where you can get mugged.

 

 

I agree white flight had a lot to do with people leaving the cities, but what gave them the avenue to do so? FREEWAYS.

 

I hate to tell you this, but it wasn't just white people leaving the inner city, it was everyone that could afford to. Without freeways, people would simply move out--and take jobs with them.

 

 

During the first decade of Interstate highway construction, 335,000 homes were razed, forcing families to look elsewhere for housing (etc, etc)

 

First off, I never said it didn't bisect African-American communities, and in the South, there were almost certainly corrupt white politicians that influenced that. But again, the lower land value was the primary driver to force highways through, and while some areas picked up higher land value, some freeways still continue to go through deteriorated area. However, even in that case, politicians are to blame, and not the freeways themselves. (Surely you don't think of freeway removal as some sort of "white guilt" thing, do you?)

 

 

Oh, yes, one more thing about freeways and congestion: A city of only about 600,000 people has the worst traffic congestion in North America! Here's a hint: It lacks freeways.

[Slick Vik]

You blamed Houston's sprawl on freeways, I said it was because Houston was a popular place to live. Houston's population didn't implode after the war, it exploded...even within the urban portions too. Freeways made the grand city Houston is today. For other less-desirable cities, it enabled them to remain viable and keep jobs within the city.

Again, fringe cases and extremely rare. You've validated your view in your mind because of these unique cases (and I've told you why in the U.S. they are removed).

We both have no idea what Houston would like look if there wasn't a freeway, or if we removed it. After all, in cities that don't have freeways running through the urban core (SF, NYC), a difference of a few blocks can make a huge difference between a tourist-friendly, walkable area to a scary area where you can get mugged.

I hate to tell you this, but it wasn't just white people leaving the inner city, it was everyone that could afford to. Without freeways, people would simply move out--and take jobs with them.

First off, I never said it didn't bisect African-American communities, and in the South, there were almost certainly corrupt white politicians that influenced that. But again, the lower land value was the primary driver to force highways through, and while some areas picked up higher land value, some freeways still continue to go through deteriorated area. However, even in that case, politicians are to blame, and not the freeways themselves. (Surely you don't think of freeway removal as some sort of "white guilt" thing, do you?)

Oh, yes, one more thing about freeways and congestion: A city of only about 600,000 people has the worst traffic congestion in North America! Here's a hint: It lacks freeways.

1. I still don't see the connection you tried to make between suburbs and air conditioning.

2. These aren't fringe cases. The idea is gaining steam and there are cities all over the country with freeway removal on the table at this moment.

3. It doesn't matter what city you're in a difference of a few blocks can be the difference between getting mugged or not. That being said New York is the safest city in the country and San Francisco is certainly safer than houston as well.

4. Not necessarily. Some of those neighborhoods were thriving and still had freeways plowed through them. That was deliberate racism.

5. Guess what the number one ranked city in the world to live in is, year after year? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't have freeways and is north of Seattle.

[august948]

5. Guess what the number one ranked city in the world to live in is, year after year? I'll give you a hint, it doesn't have freeways and is north of Seattle.

 

When I google "number one city in the world to live in" I keep getting Melbourne and Vienna as either #1 or #2.  I'll give you a hint...neither one of those are north of Seattle.

 

[IronTiger]

Rebuttal to Slick:

The suburb growth was linked to Houston's growth in post-war, which happened at around the time of air conditioning. I admit, in reality, Houston's case is an exception in that the core didn't die. There you go.

 

Again, you cling to the idea that freeway removal should be more common. Let's agree to disagree, as neither of us are going to gain ground in our argument.

 

The point I was trying to make is that you paint this happy picture of Midtown and Downtown being joined in harmony without freeways. In reality, Midtown might still be run-down as it is now...as is the case elsewhere, which is the point made. In fact, if you really wanted to join Midtown and Downtown, perhaps we should start to think of some innovative plan to make the area under Pierce Elevated pedestrian friendly.

 

[no response to no response--glad we agree]

 

Clearly you didn't read my last response to my post very carefully, so I'll wait until you do.

 

Top three Google results for most livable city in the world don't show Vancouver past #3. Besides, these types with vague parameters ("most livable cities") are rather subjective while other things (pollution, congestion, etc.) are more concrete. And I won't lie, it probably is a lovely place to take a vacation, which is why visitors to it like yourself are so enamored with it (I was a fan of Canada at one time, too). Need I remind you that while you love to trump articles about how young people are moving into urban American cities, they're moving OUT of Vancouver.

 

In conclusion, I rest my case. Freeways, like 'em or hate 'em, are beneficial overall.

[Slick Vik]

When I google "number one city in the world to live in" I keep getting Melbourne and Vienna as either #1 or #2. I'll give you a hint...neither one of those are north of Seattle.

You're right it has slipped to number 3 but was number one according to the economic intelligence unit for many years until 2012. However it's still 3.

[Slick Vik]

Rebuttal to Slick:

The suburb growth was linked to Houston's growth in post-war, which happened at around the time of air conditioning. I admit, in reality, Houston's case is an exception in that the core didn't die. There you go.

Again, you cling to the idea that freeway removal should be more common. Let's agree to disagree, as neither of us are going to gain ground in our argument.

The point I was trying to make is that you paint this happy picture of Midtown and Downtown being joined in harmony without freeways. In reality, Midtown might still be run-down as it is now...as is the case elsewhere, which is the point made. In fact, if you really wanted to join Midtown and Downtown, perhaps we should start to think of some innovative plan to make the area under Pierce Elevated pedestrian friendly.

[no response to no response--glad we agree]

Clearly you didn't read my last response to my post very carefully, so I'll wait until you do.

Top three Google results for most livable city in the world don't show Vancouver past #3. Besides, these types with vague parameters ("most livable cities") are rather subjective while other things (pollution, congestion, etc.) are more concrete. And I won't lie, it probably is a lovely place to take a vacation, which is why visitors to it like yourself are so enamored with it (I was a fan of Canada at one time, too). Need I remind you that while you love to trump articles about how young people are moving into urban American cities, they're moving OUT of Vancouver.

In conclusion, I rest my case. Freeways, like 'em or hate 'em, are beneficial overall.

How exactly do you make the underside of a bridge attractive? It's impossible.

As far as that article that's an extremely small number. I know many people in Vancouver and have a huge family old and young, nobody has left and has ever considered it. There's a reason it's ranked that high.

[IronTiger]

How exactly do you make the underside of a bridge attractive? It's impossible.

 

For someone that constantly points to other cities as what they're doing "right", I'm surprised you haven't seen what Japan did with (at least) one of its highways. Over at http://keephoustonhouston.wordpress.com/2012/10/10/can-pedestrians-and-elevated-highways-coexist/#comments'>Keep Houston Houston, there's an overpass that has street life under it. It's worth mentioning that concrete in Houston tends to be fairly light colored already, and the Pierce Elevated has no lighting under it. If we added light to it and maybe even added retail under it.

 

That, my friends, is innovation.

[Ross]

I am curious as to whether those folks who advocate lots of rail have ever actually used it in a dense city. I used rail and subway in London for four years, and it was not fun. Too many journeys standing for an hour or more in a crowded train car with my nose in just the right spot to get the full benefit of some other commuter's lack of hygiene. Rail doesn't necessarily mean a pleasant commute. I will take a car commute any day over crowded public transport. Freeways facilitate that.

[Slick Vik]

<span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">For someone that constantly points to other cities as what they're doing "right", I'm surprised you haven't seen what Japan did with (at least) one of its highways. Over at Keep Houston Houston, there's an overpass that has street life under it. It's worth mentioning that concrete in Houston tends to be fairly light colored already, and the Pierce Elevated has no lighting under it. If we added light to it and maybe even added retail under it.

That, my friends, is innovation.

I walk under the pierce elevated almost every day. Not once has there been another person crossing underneath it with me. It's dreary.

[Slick Vik]

I am curious as to whether those folks who advocate lots of rail have ever actually used it in a dense city. I used rail and subway in London for four years, and it was not fun. Too many journeys standing for an hour or more in a crowded train car with my nose in just the right spot to get the full benefit of some other commuter's lack of hygiene. Rail doesn't necessarily mean a pleasant commute. I will take a car commute any day over crowded public transport. Freeways facilitate that.

I've used it in New York, Chicago, Portland, Miami, Dallas, Istanbul, buenos aires, Mexico City, boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Rome, Delhi, Tokyo, London, and Vancouver and never had any issues.

[Ross]

I've used it in New York, Chicago, Portland, Miami, Dallas, Istanbul, buenos aires, Mexico City, boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Rome, Delhi, Tokyo, London, and Vancouver and never had any issues.

But, presumably, not day in and day out for extended periods of time, through interruptions caused by weather , equipment failures, transit worker strikes, etc. it's one thing to use transit for a few days while visiting, but you have to live somewhere and use transit for normal rush hour commutes to really understand the issues and that rail doesnt make commuting more pleasant for the average person.

[livincinco]

You're right it has slipped to number 3 but was number one according to the economic intelligence unit for many years until 2012. However it's still 3.

I do think that it's relevant to point out that it dropped from #1 to #3 as a direct result of the closure of the Malahat highway. In this case, there was a direct coorelation between removing the highway and making the city a less desirable place to live.

Vancouver scored highly because it had top scores in healthcare, culture, and education, none of which are related to transit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/28/vancouver-most-livable-city-economist_n_3830039.html?just_reloaded=1

[Slick Vik]

Wow. From your own article.

The Malahat Highway north of Victoria was closed for 22 hours in April after the crash of a fuel tanker truck.

The report made particular note of Metro Vancouver's Evergreen Line project, noting that the new SkyTrain line through Burnaby, Coquitlam and Port Moody could have long-term benefit for residents.

[Slick Vik]

But, presumably, not day in and day out for extended periods of time, through interruptions caused by weather , equipment failures, transit worker strikes, etc. it's one thing to use transit for a few days while visiting, but you have to live somewhere and use transit for normal rush hour commutes to really understand the issues and that rail doesnt make commuting more pleasant for the average person.

I've dealt with strikes in Rome and all kinds of random slowdowns in London, but again, it's better than the alternative, wasting energy and time and money driving in to work every single day. Also you can presumably be productive on the train since you don't have to worry about driving.

[livincinco]

Wow. From your own article.

The Malahat Highway north of Victoria was closed for 22 hours in April after the crash of a fuel tanker truck.

The report made particular note of Metro Vancouver's Evergreen Line project, noting that the new SkyTrain line through Burnaby, Coquitlam and Port Moody could have long-term benefit for residents.

 

Or...you could look at the FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE that says

 

"Vancouver may be the best place to live in North America, but it has yet to recover from a Vancouver Island highway closure that dropped it to third in the world in 2011."

 

 

[IronTiger]

The Malahat Highway north of Victoria was closed for 22 hours in April after the crash of a fuel tanker truck.

 

Accidents happen and delays occur on both freeways and light rail (remember the train in Houston that crashed into a building not even a year ago? No?)

 

 

I've dealt with strikes in Rome and all kinds of random slowdowns in London, but again, it's better than the alternative, wasting energy and time and money driving in to work every single day. Also you can presumably be productive on the train since you don't have to worry about driving.

 

In one of the articles mentioned somewhere on this board, it talked about how mass transit rides were usually LONGER overall than highway commutes (even taking into account congestion). And, really, who is "productive" on a train? As much as you may like to be a power user, closing out million-dollar deals on your iPad on the train before coffee, it's far more likely that you'll be reading a book, figuring out a crossword puzzle, or playing Angry Birds instead, and that's the best case scenario.

 

Worst case scenario is that you'll be forced to stand next to someone that drinks constantly and almost never showers, so you'll be stewing in that. 

 

I also noticed that in your relatively short time vacationing to Rome and London, you've already dealt with strikes and "all kinds of random slowdowns", but you were there for only a few days. Imagine the hell that everyone else puts up with year-round.

[Slick Vik]

Or...you could look at the FIRST LINE OF THE ARTICLE that says

 

"Vancouver may be the best place to live in North America, but it has yet to recover from a Vancouver Island highway closure that dropped it to third in the world in 2011."

 

The EIU used the recent closures of the Malahat highway on Vancouver Island (a solid 1.5 hours by ferry from the mainland, and an additional 30-50 minute drive from Vancouver proper as well as an additional 30-40 minutes drive to get to the actual Malahat) as a measure of congestion.

 

Also, this wasn't a permament closure. I rest my case.

[livincinco]

The EIU used the recent closures of the Malahat highway on Vancouver Island (a solid 1.5 hours by ferry from the mainland, and an additional 30-50 minute drive from Vancouver proper as well as an additional 30-40 minutes drive to get to the actual Malahat) as a measure of congestion.

As noted previously in this thread, Vancouver has a congestion problem. Removing the Malahat highway made that congestion worse. The EIU reduced Vancouver's ranking of livability accordingly. Pretty linear.

[Slick Vik]

The 25-kilometre Malahat Highway runs north of Victoria and, including a ferry ride, is about 3 1/2 hours from Vancouver. Earlier this year, a fuel tanker crash closed the winding highway for nearly one day. The route typically is not used by commuters.

When reached for an interview, EIU survey editor Jon Copestake conceded he shouldn’t have mentioned the Malahat in the report.

“I wouldn’t say it was a mistake. I regret using it as an example,” Mr. Copestake said from London.

[Slick Vik]

As noted previously in this thread, Vancouver has a congestion problem. Removing the Malahat highway made that congestion worse. The EIU reduced Vancouver's ranking of livability accordingly. Pretty linear.

 

The freeway was not removed. Please do your due diligence.

 

Vancouver was bumped, the EIU explained, because of transportation issues. It cited precisely one, the “recent intermittent closures of the key Malahat highway that resulted in a 0.7 percentage point decline in the city’s overall livability rating.”

[IronTiger]

I'm wondering exactly what makes cities "livable". In Waco, Texas, there used to be a structure called Ivy Square at the corner of University Parks Drive and Interstate 35. It was a strip mall that in its heyday included a 7-Eleven and a movie theater. Above it were apartments. If you were a student at Baylor, then that all sounds like an ideal solution. Everything you want--your classes for school, snacks and other grocery-type items, entertainment, greenspace, etc. all within your finger's reach. Of course, that by no means makes it especially desirable or a better place to live. Living does not mean living happily, and it may just be *possible* that not having freeways has nothing to do with a city's livability rating.

That, of course, makes sense. Remember the pre-City Beautiful days, of highly polluted cities and all sorts of other bad stuff? That had no freeways, and it was still miserable.

As for the "underpasses are bad", that happens with every other type of mass transit, including your beloved trains. For instance, here is a railroad underpass. It is dark, but there are sidewalks and structures on both sides. Would you walk under this to cross to the neighborhood on the other side, or decry that it divides neighborhoods and must be demolished?

Why are freeways unfairly maligned while similar railroad viaducts get a pass?

[livincinco]

This conversation has helped me to realize what a complete waste of productive time HAIF is.  It's been real.  Peace to all.

[placoors]

I am curious as to whether those folks who advocate lots of rail have ever actually used it in a dense city. I used rail and subway in London for four years, and it was not fun. Too many journeys standing for an hour or more in a crowded train car with my nose in just the right spot to get the full benefit of some other commuter's lack of hygiene. Rail doesn't necessarily mean a pleasant commute. I will take a car commute any day over crowded public transport. Freeways facilitate that.

I rode Cap Metro for 4 years while in school in Austin.  Good thing I didn't have to dress nice or be on time to a job at the same time so I could schedule my free time around the bus.

I used the New Orleans streetcar for 5 years.  I lived close to the stop so that was nice but there was no A/C and the ride to work was terrible everday while wearing a jacket and tie.  It was a lot of fun on the weekends when tourists were in town and we could drink on the streetcar.

I have used the Houston Metro for the last year in the Galleria and Greenway Plaza area.  Works pretty well and there are multiple routes if you miss the bus you are looking for.  This is the furthest I have lived from a transit stop so the humidity gets to me while walking to the stop but there is A/C on the buses so I am cooled off when I get to work.

I now own a car and that is my preferred method of transit.  I can park for free at work and the drive is about 15 minutes or so faster than taking the bus.

[Slick Vik]

I'm wondering exactly what makes cities "livable". In Waco, Texas, there used to be a structure called Ivy Square at the corner of University Parks Drive and Interstate 35. It was a strip mall that in its heyday included a 7-Eleven and a movie theater. Above it were apartments. If you were a student at Baylor, then that all sounds like an ideal solution. Everything you want--your classes for school, snacks and other grocery-type items, entertainment, greenspace, etc. all within your finger's reach. Of course, that by no means makes it especially desirable or a better place to live. Living does not mean living happily, and it may just be *possible* that not having freeways has nothing to do with a city's livability rating.

That, of course, makes sense. Remember the pre-City Beautiful days, of highly polluted cities and all sorts of other bad stuff? That had no freeways, and it was still miserable.

As for the "underpasses are bad", that happens with every other type of mass transit, including your beloved trains. For instance, here is a railroad underpass. It is dark, but there are sidewalks and structures on both sides. Would you walk under this to cross to the neighborhood on the other side, or decry that it divides neighborhoods and must be demolished?

Why are freeways unfairly maligned while similar railroad viaducts get a pass?

 

To be fair, there's a big difference in width when you compare a freeway to a rail bridge.

[ToryGattis]

This conversation has helped me to realize what a complete waste of productive time HAIF is.  It's been real.  Peace to all.

 

Hope you stick around, livincinco.  I really like a lot of your points.  But I agree - you have to pick your battles, make your points, and get out before the quagmire starts.

[Ross]

I've dealt with strikes in Rome and all kinds of random slowdowns in London, but again, it's better than the alternative, wasting energy and time and money driving in to work every single day. Also you can presumably be productive on the train since you don't have to worry about driving.

 

You can't be any more productive on a crowded train than you can in a car. Especially if you have to stand for the entire journey.

 

You haven't dealt with a strike situation until you are standing in front of a screen, waiting for the time of the train to your destination to appear, and then been carried along in a huge crowd, unable to control your own movement, while hearing someone cry out "but I don't want to get on this train".

 

Trains have a place in transit planning, but they are not a panacea, nor are they likely to be any more pleasant than a freeway commute.

[jjreyes75]

I don't see how people lived without freeways. Try to get some where and take a non freeway route. I like taking the old highway sometimes if I'm in no hurry, but it's so much less stress to take a freeway because red lights suck.

[Slick Vik]

You can't be any more productive on a crowded train than you can in a car. Especially if you have to stand for the entire journey.

You haven't dealt with a strike situation until you are standing in front of a screen, waiting for the time of the train to your destination to appear, and then been carried along in a huge crowd, unable to control your own movement, while hearing someone cry out "but I don't want to get on this train".

Trains have a place in transit planning, but they are not a panacea, nor are they likely to be any more pleasant than a freeway commute.

I would rather be on a train instead of spending energy and time and gas driving, not to mention any time you drive you put yourself at risk of being in an accident.

But that's besides the point, I think people should at least be afforded the option. You and others refuse to want to give us other options of modes of transit in Houston. That's the issue.

[ToryGattis]

I would rather be on a train instead of spending energy and time and gas driving, not to mention any time you drive you put yourself at risk of being in an accident.

 

 

Question for Slick: if cars were automated self-driving, accident-free, all-electric, and recharged from solar power (both on the car and the roof of your garage) - and were also available on demand to those who don't own one by the local transit agency and taxi services - would you still be anti-car/anti-freeway/pro-rail?

 

Followup questions: what if they ran on clean natural gas?  What if they were plug-in hybrids that ran on battery power at first but also normal gasoline for extended range and got 50+ mpg?

 

Just trying to understand where the line is here on cars are good vs. cars are bad.